(Original post by butter_god)
I was walking in a park, and saw a Hiroshima memorial; got me thinking: do we need war? (based on the definition of more than 1,000 ppl killed, armed forces)

There's Nazi Germany- we needed the war to stop Hitler- but at the cost of several thousands if not millions of civilians.

So, I pose this question:
Do we need war? or just stick to diplomacy?

You seem to be under the misapprehension that war is always some kind of official state of affairs that is one of a number of options presented to the leader of a country during an international crisis. That's sometimes how it happens - but more often than not, war is a natural reaction like heat+oxygen+fuel=fire.

(Original post by Clip)
You seem to be under the misapprehension that war is always some kind of official state of affairs that is one of a number of options presented to the leader of a country during an international crisis. That's sometimes how it happens - but more often than not, war is a natural reaction like heat+oxygen+fuel=fire.

But for every one of those, there will be an act of unprovoked aggression leading to an almost automatic war. After Pearl Harbour - where was the scope for diplomacy?

I know people who always state that war isn't needed ect- so that's why I'm posing the question. I happen to believe it is necessary in some cases- sometimes totally unnecessary. I mean, look at the Iraq war; only done in pre-emptive defence they (US) say: but had they actually done their research, there were no weapons ect.

War is a necessary evil, but only when all other resources have been wiped out.

War is necessary and will exist for as long as human conflict exists. I only foresee a radical shift in human beings' perception of war and conflict when human beings bring the entire human race to the brink of oblivion through war. Maybe then shall we learn.